LZ9SZESOL ZLIOg 


TNA 





SPECIAL EDITION . = AW re 
PENNSYLVANIA. SCHOOL JOURNAL slay 
MARCH 12, 1923 
CRUORTION Z 
gaPanTRgey c 





REPORT 


of the 


Survey of the 
Pennsylvania State Program 
of Education 


by the © 


Special Committee Employed by the Pennsylvania 
State Education Association 


Authorized by Resolution of the Executive Council 


of the Tae URRAY oe PRES 4, 1922 
FEB 5 1996 


UNIVERSITY OF TLLHEOIS 
Publication Authorized by the Executive 
| Council of the 
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 
No. 10 South Market Square 
HARRISBURG, PA. 





Entered as second-class matter September 1, 1921, at the post office at Lebanon, Pa., under the act of 
arch 3, 1879. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in 
section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized Sept. 1, 1921 








rN | ST 148 
| ‘ LP BE QR roe ratio” 


V 



















Personnel of Survey 
Committee 


ne LOHN —W. WITHERS, Chairman, Dean School of Education,: New 
York University, New York City. Formerly Head Harris Teachers 
College, ‘St. Louis, Mo., and Superintendent of Public Schools, that city. 


MR. FRANK CODY, Superintendent Schools, Detroit, Michigan and Mem- 
ber of the Michigan State Board of Education. 


DR. THOMAS E. JOHNSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 
Lansing, Michigan, and Vice President of the Michigan State Board of 


Education. 


DR. PAYSON SMITH, State Commissioner of Education, Boston, Massa- 
chusetts, New President of the Department of Superintendence N. E. A. 


Formerly State Superintendent of Public Schools of the State of Maine. 


MiSS CHARL O. WILLIAMS, Field Secretary National Education Asso- 
ciation, Washington, D. C. -Formerly County Superintendent of Schools, 
Shelby County, Tennessee, and President of the Nationai Education 


- Association. - 


PROBLEMS 


1. Is our State program of education a good one and adequate to 
meet the needs of the State? Answer: YES. See page 6. 


2. Is our State Department of Public Instruction properly organ- 
ae ; ized and manned? Answer: YES. See page 10. 


ng 3. Is our State program costing too much? Answer: NO. See 
page 11. 


4. Are we paying too much or too little for public education? 
Answer: WE ARE PAYING TOO LITTLE. See page 12. 


5. Can we afford not to raise the money requisite to carry out our 
State program of education? Answer: NO, WE CANNOT. 
See page 14. 


FEB5 1926 
BPR Fe i 
UNIVERSITY oF int paetbee 


J yaaa ee, ae Ry ; 
¥ 


J 


i . . ) i ie 7) . c ; ay 
as. Me ay ihe ne) ri eS f 
¢ ee wht aotlos tar ee 
a ) é ey S si - oe 
, oh ’ ' _ i pe " " 





Survey of the State Program of Education 
in Pennsylvania 


To the Executive Council of the Pennsylvania | 


State Education Association: 


HE Committee that submits this report 

| was authorized by the Executive Coun- 
-cil of the Pennsylvania State Education 
Association at a meeting in Harrisburg, No- 
vember 4, 1922. The purpose of the Council 
was to obtain for the teachers of Pennsylvania, 
99% of whom are members of the Association, 
an unbiased professional judgment of the value 
and effectiveness of the present State program 
of education in meeting the educational needs 
of the State. It was thought best, in the re- 
alization of this purpose, that the Committee 
should be composed of educators chosen from 
outside the State, who could, for this reason, 
consider the problem without local prejudice. 


The Problem 


The problem set for the Committee by the 
Executive Council may be stated as follows: 


1. Is the State program of education in Penn- 
sylvania a good one and adequate to meet 
the needs of the State? 


2. Is the State Department of Education prop- 
erly organized and manned? 


3. Is the State Department of Education cost- 
ing too much? 

4. Is the State paying too much or too little 
for public education? 


5. Can the State afford not to raise the money 
requisite to carry out the present rate 
program of education? 


Plan of the Report 


The Committee has decided to make a very 
brief report, presenting its conclusions and 
recommendations without attempting to set 
forth in detail the facts and arguments on 
which they are based. It does this for two 
reasons: First, the report is prepared by spe- 
cial request for the teachers of the State, who 
are already familiar with the essential facts 
and desire merely to get the judgment of the 
Committee ‘as to the value of the present State 
program of education and the soundness of the 
policies on which it is based. Second, it is de- 
sired that the report be made accessible as 
early as possible to all teachers and school 
officials of the State, and that, for this reason, 


it be presented in such form as will permit. of 
its publication in the PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL 
JOURNAL. 
Sources of Information 
With the exception of Commissioner Smith 
of Massachusetts, who came on later, the Com- 
mittee spent the week of January 8-15 in Har- 


-risburg in a first hand study of the facts. Su- 


perintendent Finegan, having been informed 
of the intention of the Committee, very kindly 
retained at Harrisburg for that week the lead- 
ing members of his staff to facilitate the work 
of bringing together the necessary informa- 
tion. Every type of material in the possession 
of the State Department of Public Instruction 
was placed at the disposal of the Committee. 
This consisted, among other things, of the 
records of the Department, the school laws 
of the State, the reports of the congresses 
called by Dr. Finegan to assist him in formu- 
lating the policies and setting up the present 
program of education and the various reports, 
courses of study, public addresses and other 
documents issued by the Department in carry- 
ing out the program. The Committee held 
several conferences with Dr. Finegan and with 
his subject directors and heads of divisions. 
It was also given full opportunity to study 
intimately the organization and personnel of 
the Department, the scope and character of its 
work, its relation to local school authorities, 
the expenses incurred in its operation, the 
amount of State aid distributed through it to 
local communities, the methods by which this 
is done and the statistical and other informa- 
tion necessary to a proper understanding of 
the educational situation in the State, both 
before and after the present program was in- 
troduced. The Committee, therefore, has in 
its possession ample information on which to 
base valid judgments in answer to the ques- 
tions submitted to it by the Executive Council. 


Treatment of the Problem 


The essence of the problem set for the Com- 
mittee is contained in the following question: 
Is the present State program of education a 
good one and adequate to meet the needs of 
the State? The answer is affirmative. The 
program is an excellent one and it is adequate 
to meet the educational needs of the State. It 


6 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL 


is not, however, a perfect program, nor is it 
complete. It can and should be improved, but 
the changes needed do not alter it in any vital 
way, nor do they require any interference with 
its effective operation. They are really implied 
in the policy on which the program is based 
and form a part of the plan of the State De- 
partment of Education for the further exten- 
sion and improvement of this program. 


The Program 


But what is the program? What are the 
educational needs which it is supposed to 
meet? and, How fully and successfully does it 
meet these needs? The program has three es- 
sential features: The determination of an edu- 
cational policy considered best for Pennsyl- 
vania, the partial embodiment of this policy in 
the school legislation of 1921 and the organized 
effort led by the State Department of Educa- 


tion to make this and previously enacted but — 


hitherto unenforced legislation effective in the 
improvement of education in the State. The 
program, is, therefore, a matter of policy, of 
legislation and of administration and must be 
judged in these three respects. In forming 
such a judgment one must also consider the 
conditions that had to be met when the pro- 
gram was adopted, the effectiveness of the 
means and methods employed to meet these 
conditions, the wisdom and practical character 
of the objectives set up, and the actual results 
thus far achieved. 

From all these points of view the program 
is to be strongly commended for the following 
reasons: 

1. It is fundamental. It deals with the 
recognized essentials of State education, and 
includes nothing that can be considered fad- 
distic. At the same time, it does not prevent 
any local community from adding to the cur- 
ricula anything that it chooses provided these 
essentials required by the State are first taken 
care of. 

2. It is sound in theory. It is in harmony 
with the best present day thought and experi- 
ence in State education. The principles on 
which it is based are everywhere accepted at 
the present time where progressive work is 
being done. 

38. It is readily adaptable to changing con- 
ditions and needs. It is not based on an inflex- 
ible conception of State education, but con- 
tains within itself the possibilities of growth 
and improvement. The same method by which 
it was adopted can and should be used to keep 


it adjusted to any new conditions and needs 
that may arise. é, 

4. Itis based on the educational history and 
present needs of Pennsylvania. The best tra- 
ditions of the State have not been ignored. 
The program has been’ rationally developed. It 
has not arisen suddenly out of an ill-advised 
theory of State education, nor has it been 
brought in from the outside and arbitrarily 
imposed on the schools of .the State. It is 
distinctly a program for Pennsylvania, in the 
framing of which the best wisdom and experi- 
ence of the State were earnestly sought and 
utilized. 

5. It provided for the progressive improve- 
ment of education in the State. It takes ac- 
count of future possibilities and needs and sets 
up a reasonable goal far enough in advance to 
stimulate and encourage sustained effort. It 
is a rational and workable attempt to restore 
Pennsylvania to that place among the States 
in the matter of public education which she 
formerly held and to which her wealth and the 
character of her population justly entitle her. 

6. It is a definite attempt to equalize the 
opportunities and the burden of public edu- 
cation throughout the State. Though not 
wholly successful in this respect and capable 
of further improvement, it is far in advance 
of the program which it replaced, as will be 
shown later in this report, and is one of the 
best approximations of the ideal distribution of 
burden and opportunity in State education to 
be found in practical operation anywhere in 
the United States. f 

7. It recognizes the right co-operative rela- 
tionship between State and local communities 
in the administration and support of the 
schools. “Education is now everywhere recog- 
nized in the United States as primarily a func- 
tion of the State. This is shown by legisla- 
tive action in all the States, and by numerous 
court decisions. Nowhere, however, is the local: 
community relieved of all responsibility in the 
administration and support of its own schools. 
In Pennsylvania the authority and responsi- 
bility for the maintenance of minimum stand- 
ards of. education guaranteed by law to all 
children of the State are centralized, as they 
should be, in the State Department of Edu- 
cation. Experience shows that in no other way 
can these standards be uniformly and eco- 
nomically maintained throughout the State. At 
the same time, the right and responsibility of 
local communities and the need of encouraging 
them to exceed State requirements wherever 


SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM OF EDUCATION 7 


this can be done are recognized and provided 
for: 
8. It has the cordial approval and support 


of the educational leaders of the State. 
It is, in fact, their program because 
it is based on the conclusions reached 


and the recommendations made by them 
at the congresses which were held by Dr. 
Finegan for this purpose. The program, is, 
therefore, an approximate realization of what 
they, in their most intimate knowledge of the 
schools, considered most desirable for Penn- 
sylvania. They have had a share in determin- 
ing the program, are familiar with its under- 
lying policy, have been from the first well ac- 
quainted with what it is intended to accom- 
plish, and believe that the goals set up are not 
only desirable but are also possible of attain- 
ment. There is little wonder, therefore, that 
the leading educational organizations of the 
State have strongly endorsed the program. 
Among these are The Pennsylvania State Edu- 
cation Association, The Association of College 
Presidents, the Pennsylvania State School Di- 
rectors Association, the Association of School 
Board Secretaries, the Department of County 
Superintendence, the Department of District 
Superintendence and the School Directors As- 
sociations of numerous counties of the State. 
With such support as this even a less worthy 
program could hardly fail of a large measure 
of success. 

9. Lastly, the program is getting results. 
Though it has been in operation for less than 
three years, the net result thus far has been 
an educational development, which, consider- 
ing the time involved and the extent to which 
it has beneficially influenced all types of schools 
and aroused the general interest in public edu- 
cation of both the teaching profession and the 
people of the State is without a parallel in 
the history of American education. 

The whole problem has been attacked in a 
rational and practical way. The educational 
conditions and needs of the State were first 
thoroughly and critically studied. Those who 
were most. competent to do this were called 
to assist in the preparation of the program. 
Among these were business and professional 
men as well as educators so that every legiti- 
mate interestmightbe considered and no worthy 
claim overlooked. Suggestions for improve- 
ment from any source were carefully weighed, 
and when found sufficiently important were 

incorporated in the program. The educational 
erisis which Pennsylvania was facing called 


for heroic measures and such measures were 
taken. At the same time it was clearly recog- 
nized that the situation could not be corrected 
at once, that the plan decided upon must 
cover a period of years and that matters that 
were of the most vital importance must have 
first attention. 


Conditions to Be Met 


Among the more serious conditions that had 
to be met, attention is called to the following: 
During the preceding quarter of a century, 
the State had made progress in education. 
This fact must not be overlooked. The efforts 
to improve the schools had borne fruit, and 
the educators of the period in general were 
worthy servants of the State. 


Nevertheless, Pennsylvania had fallen rap- 
idly behind many other States of the Union 
in the progress of education. As judged by 
the ten essentials on which the study of State 
School Systems was made by the Russell Sage 
Foundation, Pennsylvania held tenth place 
in 1890, fifteenth in 1900, sixteenth in 
1910 and _ twenty-first in 1918 in the 
general excellence of its public School 
System. This. comparison was based upon 
such important matters as the average 
attendance, the qualifications and salaries of 
teachers, the development of high school fa- 
cilities, and the expenditures per pupil and per 
capita on public education. The State stood 
twenty-fourth in 1918 in the percentage of 
her school population attending school daily, 
twenty-first in the average number of days at- 
tended by each child of legal school age, twenty- 
fifth in the average annual expenditures per 
child and twenty-ninth in the ratio of high 
school attendance to total attendance. 


Attendance 


The attendance law of the State was not 
generally enforced. The methods employed 
under local supervision failed to keep the chil- 
dren in school. Moreover, the law provided 
that in districts of the fourth class pupils over 
twelve years of age might be excused from 
school three-tenths of the time for domestic 
or farm service. There was also in many parts 
of the State local sentiment against the en- 
forcement of attendance. Consequently the 
average daily attendance in 1919 for the entire 
State was about seventy-four per cent. One 
child in every four who should have been in 
school was absent every day throughout the 


8 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL / 


school year, and of the total enrollment of 
1,800,000 children at least 450,000 were con- 
tinually out of school,—a number more than 
equal to the total enrollment of Pittsburgh and 
Philadelphia combined. ° 

The loss in morale and in the general ef- 
fectiveness of instruction due to this excessive 
absence and irregularity of attendance repre- 
sents a waste of educational effort of the most 
serious character. Besides, there was a finan- 
cial loss of more than fifteen million dollars 
per annum from state and local funds for the 
support of education; for it cost practically 
as much to operate the schools with twenty- 
six per cent of the children absent as it would 
have cost had those children been in school. 
Proper co-operation of local school agencies 
with the State Department of Education, sup- 
ported by effective supervision of the health of 
school children and the sanitation of school 
buildings, should have secured an average 
daily attendance of at least ninety per cent. 
Within one year after the present program of 
education went into operation the average daily 
attendance in rural Pennsylvania was _ in- 
creased nearly 10 per cent, thus saving to the 
State in fourth class districts alone nearly 
$1,500,000 on its annual school investment. 


Length of School Year 

The school year, especially in fourth class 
districts was only seven months. This fact, 
combined with poor attendance, brought about 
the unfortunate result that the children of 
Pennsylvania who were from six to twelve 
years of age were spending less than ten per 
cent of their total waking time in school each 
year, and those from twelve to sixteen years 
slightly more than eight per cent. Examina- 
tion of the records of attendance in all the 
rural schools of the State for the period from 
1910 to 1919 shows that the average attend- 
ance of children from six to twelve years of 
age was less than one hundred nine days and 
of those from twelve to sixteen years of age 
only eighty-nine days. 


Qualifications of Teachers 

The standards for the preparation and cer- 
tification of teachers were also exceedingly 
low. Approximately 175,000 children repre- 
senting a total population of more than 1,000,- 
000 people living for the most part in rural 
districts, were being taught in 1918 by teachers 
who had no more than an elementary school 
education, no professional training, and the 
majority of them no teaching experience. 


Nearly 600,000 children also living chiefly in 
rural communities and in districts of the third 
and fourth classes were being taught by teach- 
ers who had not had more than a high school 
education. Practically half of the teachers of 
the State had had no professional training 
except what they had gained through practical 
experience. Of those who were supervised by 
county superintendents, 23 per cent were new 
teachers without experience, and only 31 per 
cent had had any normal school training. 
39 per cent of the teachers of one room rural 
schools had never attended high school, 32 
per cent were without teaching experience, 
only 88 per cent had taught in the same po- 
sition the preceding year, and only 15 per cent 
were normal school graduates. In the cities of 
the State, 87 per cent had had normal school 
training, and only 11 per cent were college 
graduates. The annual turnover among the 
teachers of the State was approximately 5,000, 


which together with the additional positions 


that had to be filled on account of the natural 
erowth of the school population made it nec- 
essary to place approximately 6,000 new teach- 
ers in the schools of the State each year. 


Teachers’ Salaries 


Low salaries and inadequate facilities for 
the training of teachers were the two causes 
chiefly responsible for this unfortunate condi- 
tion. f 

For more than a quarter of a century prior 
to 1919 the average monthly salaries of the 
teachers of Pennsylvania had been lower than 
the average for the United States as a whole, 
and increasingly so as the period advanced. 
For men, the average was 8 per cent below 
that for the United States in 1888 and 24 per 
cent below in 1916. For women, this average 
was 13 per cent below in 1888 and 382 per cent 
below in 1916. In the year 1918 the average 
annual salary of all the teachers in the ele- 
mentary schools of the State was only $388.00. 
In the cities, as shown by the report of the 
Committee on salaries of the National Edu- 
cation Association prepared for 1913 salaries 
were lower than for cities of the same size 
throughout the United States, and much lower 
than those of New York and New Jersey. Su- 
perintendents in both small and large cities 
were also paid less than the average for such 
positions in the United States, Pennsylvania 
ranking thirty-ninth among the States in this 
respect. Under these conditions it was but 
natural that many of the best teachers and 


SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM OF EDUCATION 9 


superintendents could not be kept in the State 
and that often even the most promising gradu- 


ates of the state normal schools, though trained 


at the expense of Pennsylvania, were induced 
to leave without serving the schools of the 
State because of more attractive salaries and 
more favorable conditions for professional ad- 
vancement elsewhere. 

The normal schools were wholly inadequate 
to meet this situation. In spite of poor equip- 
ment, inadequate support and unorganized co- 
operative effort, these schools had during their 
long’ career rendered valuable service to the 
State, having supplied it with many of its best 
teachers, but the poor salaries and low stand- 
ing of the teaching profession in the State 
made it impossible to attract to these schools 
a sufficient number of students of good ability 
and adequate preparation, or to maintain 
proper standards of admission or of gradua- 
tion. This would have been true even if the 
normal schools had been well equipped and 
adequately supported, but they were not. They 
were established at first as private institutions 
of academic grade, and were not taken over 
and controlled by the State until 1911. From 
that time until the present program was 
adopted they were very poorly supported, the 
State paying only a tuition fee of $60 per 
annum for students over 17 years of age who 
- signified their intention of teaching. This fee 
was increased to $80 in 1919 and the appropria- 
- tion of $10,000 per annum to each of the nor- 
mal schools for maintenance was also author- 
ized. Nothing, however, was provided for the 
erection and equipment of new buildings or 
for the reconstruction and repair of old ones. 
Many of the buildings were consequently out 
of repair, uninviting and unsanitary, and few, 
if any, of them were of fire proof or fire resis- 
tive construction. 


Meeting the Conditions 


Here, then, were the primary problems of 
the new program of education. It was recog- 
nized by those who were responsible for this 
program that an indispensable requirement of 
any school system is an adequately equipped 
- teacher in every classroom and for every school 
child, and that such teachers cannot be secured 
in sufficient number to meet the requirements 
of the State without providing salaries suf- 
ficient to command their services. Either the 
salaries paid must be enough higher than those 
of other States to rob them of a sufficient num- 
ber of well-qualified teachers, or, what is really 


more economical and certainly more. ethical, 
adequate facilities for the training of teachers 
must be provided by the State itself: 

Another indispensable requirement ofa good 
school system is competent leadership in edu- 
cation in every community. Without this even 
a well-trained teaching staff will be relatively 
inefficient. Such leadership cannot be supplied 
unless the salaries of superintendents, super- 
visors and principals are high enough for this 
purpose. Failure to secure and hold such lead- 
ership is certainly not economy. It has been 
said that Pennsylvania had been securing in 
her school system under the above conditions 
just what she had been paying for. This, how- 
ever, is not true, for the overhead expense of 
a large school system is the same whether the 
staff employed is competent or incompetent. 
The saving of money by not spending it for 
necessary expert service in the classroom or 
in administrative and supervisory positions is 
not economy but actual extravagance. 

A better school attendance was also recog- 
nized as a prime necessity. It was obvious 
folly to call upon the State for more money for 
the extension and improvement of the schools 
without providing effective means in the State 
Department of Education for guaranteeing, 
through the enforcement of attendance, that 
the children of the State would actually receive 
the benefits of such increased appropriations. 


School Laws of 1921 

To meet these conditions, the School Laws 
of 1921 were so framed as to provide: (1) for 
raising the standard qualifications of teachers; 
(2) for establishing a higher schedule of sal- 
aries; (3) for adding to the support of the 
normal schools, increasing their facilities and 
improving their work; (4) for increasing the 
length of the school term, especially in fourth 
class districts; (5) for re-enforcing compul- 
sory school attendance; (6) for establishing 
State aid to local communities for the main- 
tenance of new and higher standards, basing 
such aid upon the principle that those dis- 
tricts least able to bear the burden should be 
most generously supported; (7) for establish- 
ing a budget system in every school district 
thereby putting school finances throughout the 
State on a business-like basis; (8) for en- 
couraging, but not requiring, the consolida- 
tion of rural schools through the provision of 
State aid for transportation and a fixed allow- 
ance for every school closed for this purpose; 
and (9) for centralizing and unifying State 


10 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL 


school administration by abolishing the State 
Board of Education and the College and Uni- 
versity Council, and creating in their place the 
State Council of Education. 

The effective administration of those laws 
through co-operation of the State Department 
of Education with the educational leaders of 
the State and with local school agencies is 
rapidly restoring Pennsylvania to its proper 
place in the front rank of American States in 
public education. 


Results of Program 


One of the finest evidences of the success of 
the program is the remarkable response of the 
teachers of the State to the new demands for 
improved qualifications. For nine weeks dur- 
ing the summer vacation of 1922, more than 
twenty-five thousand teachers attended sum- 
mer schools, taxing the colleges and normal 
schools of the State to their utmost capacity 
to accommodate them. Fully one-third of the 
45,000 teachers of the State are attending ex- 
tension courses on Saturdays and after school 
hours during the present school year. The 
remarkable fact that nearly sixty per cent of 
the entire corps attended summer schools and 
spent every dollar of their increase of salary, 
and sometimes more, for professional improve- 
ment is a magnificent tribute to the fine pro- 
fessional spirit of the teachers of Pennsylva- 
nia. Nothing at all approximating this has 
ever occurred before in State education. It 
cannot be too highly commended or too greatly 
appreciated by the people of the State. 


The fact that the teachers of the State, 
through their State Association, a professional 
organization to which more than 99 per cent 
of them belong, should order at their own ex- 
pense, a survey of the present State program 
of education that they may know whether or 
not their efforts in behalf of the children are 
being wisely directed, also sets a new profes- 
sional standard in State education and among 
teachers’ organizations. 


It is inconceivable that the people of Penn- 
sylvania will fail to give most cordial support 
to the leadership and the program of education 
that has called forth such a response when 
they have come to understand fully what is 
being, and will continue to be, accomplished 
for the children of the State. 

Is the State Department of Education 
properly organized and manned? The Com- 
mittee’s answer to this question is also affirma- 


tive. The present organization is a good one. 
It is, however, capable of improvement. This 
fact is apparent to no one more than Superin- 
tendent Finegan. As a consequence of the con- 
ditions which had to be met in setting up the 
present State Program of Education, the com- 
plete reorganization of the Department in full 
harmony with the new demands that would be 
made upon it, was delayed until the more ur- 
gent needs of the State school system could be 
provided for. This was done for three reasons: 
(1) The magnitude of the State school prob- 
lem was such as to require a considerable 
period of time to accomplish its satisfactory 
solution. As already pointed out, it was nec- 
essary that such a solution must be a progres- 
sive achievement. (2) The need of remedial 
effort was more important and far more urgent 
in other parts of the system; and (38) it was 
obvious that the most desirable and efficient 
form of organization of the Department was 
dependent upon the new and somewhat unusual 
demands made upon it by the new program of 
education. These demands could not be fully 
determined in advance of the actual operation 
of the program. 


The present organization of the Depart- 
ment is, therefore, mainly but not wholly, 
determined by legislation enacted prior to 1921, 
and is in some of its features a form worked 
out to meet the needs that have arisen in the 
gradual evolution of the State school system. 
It is similar in these respects to the plan of 
organization that has been found best in other 
States. However, the Subject Directors in- 
cluded in the personnel of the Department are 
not commonly found as a part of the State 
organization elsewhere, but are provided for 
in harmony with the new conception of the 
function of the State Department involved in 
the present program and with, the urgent need 
for this type of service in the schools of Penn- 
sylvania. 


The underlying principle which has deter- 
mined the reorganization of the Department 
thus far, and will doubtless control its further 
development, is the same as that which has 
determined the form of administrative and su- 
pervisory organization that has been found 
through long experience to be most satisfactory 
in city school systems. It provides not only 
for effective school administration, but also for 
the supervision and improvement of instruc- 
tion. In the State Department of Pennsylva- 
nia, therefore, three types of service are recog- 


SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM OF EDUCATION it 


nized: (1) The definition of policies for the 


improvement of the schools of the State and 


the presentation of these policies to the legis- 
lature for the legal authority to put them into 
effect; (2) The administrative enforcement of 
school legislation: and (8) the rendering of ex- 
pert professional service in the supervision of 
school work in any part of the: State where 
such service is needed and requested by local 
school authorities. 

In all of these respects there is abundant 
evidence that the Department is rendering un- 
usually efficient service. It is extremely fortu- 
nate in those of its staff who have been chosen 
for each type of service. In all cases, men 
and women have been selected because of their 
fitness for the special lines of work in which 
they are employed and because of their achieve- 
ments in these lines. They are in almost every 
case men and women of such outstanding abil- 
ity and professional equipment as to command 
as they should the respect and confidence of 
teachers and school officials throughout the 
State. The desirability and economy of em- 
ploying such persons are evident. The salar- 
ies which the Department has been able to pay 
and the opportunities for increased profession- 
al service which it offers, have proved sufficient 
thus far to secure this type of men and women. 
The Department has not, however, been able to 
‘hold many of its strongest members because 
of the call to higher positions and better sal- 
aries elsewhere. During the last three years 
14 per cent of its members have been lost in 
this way. Such latitude should be granted to 
the State Superintendent of Instruction in de- 
termining the salaries of the staff as would 
enable him to prevent this serious loss in the 
efficiency of the Department. 

The subject directors have been of great 
service in promoting a professional spirit 
among the teachers of the State and in stimu- 
lating the improvement of instruction. They 
are rendering assistance where it is most 
needed and most effective and’ their ser- 
vices are constantly demanded not only by 
the smaller towns and rural districts but also 
by the larger cities of the State. No state 
or city school system can be highly efficient, 
no matter how well organized and equipped it 
may be from an administrative point of view, 
if it fails to provide sufficient help in the class 
room where the real work of the system must 
be done. The State Department of Pennsyl- 
vania is to be highly commended for the rec- 
ognition it has given to this fact, which is al- 


most universally neglected in state depart- 
ments of education. 

The various bureaus of the Department are 
also rendering highly efficient service to the 
schools of the State. In several instances they 
have saved the State in actual money value 
many times the cost of operating the bureaus. 
This is notably true of the Bureaus of School 
Buildings and of School Attendance. The ac- 
tual saving to the State brought about by the 
increased attendance due to the efficiency of 
the Attendance Bureau has already been 
pointed out. 

There is great need in the Department of 
an editorial staff which could relieve the heads 
of Bureaus, Subject Directors and the Super- 
intendent himself, of the work of putting in 
form for publication the various reports and 
statements issued by the Department to the 
public. Such a staff'could also put in form 
for distribution throughout the State, wher- 
ever it may be needed, information concern- 
ing interesting educational progress in any 
part of the State or from any part of the 
United States. Improved facilities for the 
immediate publication of the reports and 
other documents issued by the Department 
should be’ provided. At present the publica- 
tion of this type of material is too long de- 
layed. 

Is the State Department of Education cost- 
ing too much? From the standpoint of the 
type of service which the department is ren- 
dering and the cost of state departments of 
education elsewhere, the answer to this ques- 
tion must be negative. During the fifteen 
years prior to 1920 the departments of public 
instruction in other states increased their 
personnel more rapidly than did Pennsyl- 
vania. In the present administration, because 
of the new demands occasioned by the present 
program of education, the personnel of the 
department has been considerably increased. 
However, the present number of staff officers, 
in proportion to the number of pupils en- 
rolled, is near the average for eleven repre- 
sentative northern states. The salaries of 
these officers are higher than the average for 
other states for two reasons: (1) These sal- 
aries in most of the other states were decided 
upon at a time when salaries of all kinds 
were low, consequently it is very difficult to 
secure high grade service in these states at 
the present time. (2) It was very properly 
regarded in the Pennsylvania Department as 
a distinct economy to pay for the highest type 
of service that can be secured. As already 


i 


VON. 


12 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL 


pointed. out, the present salaries have not 
proved high enough to retain some of the best 
men-and women that have been brought into 
the department. They are certainly no higher 
than they must be to secure the qualifications 
that are needed. 

The entire cost of the State Department of 
Education in Pennsylvania was 5.1 cents per 
capita in 1922. This was somewhat higher 
than the corresponding costs in Ohio, Illinois, 
Indiana and Michigan, but less than in Massa- 
chusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York 
and New Jersey, and was 1.6 cents below the 
average of the states named. The administra- 
tion cost per pupil in Pennsylvania was 27.5 
cents. This was higher than in Ohio, Indiana, 
Illinois and Michigan, but lower than in Con- 
necticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minne- 
sota, New York and New Jersey, and was 
8.3 cents less per pupil than the average of 
these states. These facts indicate that admin- 
istration costs in Pennsylvania are probably 
below the average among northern states and 
considerably below those of Massachusetts, 
Connecticut, New York and New Jersey. 


The Committee strongly recommends that 
larger sums be made available to meet the 
traveling expenses of the members of the De- 
partment staff. 

Is the State paying too much or too little 
for public education? This question should 
be considered from three points of view: (1) 
Is the State spending more or less than it 
should in view of its financial ability to sup- 
port public education? (2) Is the State, as 
compared with the local communities, bearing 
a larger share of the financial burden of edu- 
cation than it should? (3) Is the ratio of the 
State’s expenditures for education to its total 
expenditures for all purposes larger than it 
should be? 

The latest investigation by the United 
States Government of the taxable wealth of 
the various states shows that in 1912 Pennsyl- 
vania ranked nineteenth among the states in 
the true valuation per capita of general prop- 
erty. The State’s economic development since 
1912 gives no reason to believe that its pres- 
ent rank is lower than it was at that time. A 
recently published report of the National 
Bureau of Economic Research shows that the 
annual income per inhabitant for Pennsyl- 
vania in 1919 was $688. This was nine per 
cent higher than for the United States as a 
whole. In this respect also the State ranked 
nineteenth. 


It follows, therefore, that from the stand- 
point of property value and income per in- 
habitant, Pennsylvania is financially more 
able to support public education than the aver- 
age state of the Union. 


How does its actual expenditure on Education 
compare with the corresponding expendi- 
tures of other States? 


In 1870 the State was spending per capita 
of total population 35 per cent more on public 
education than the average for the United 
States, in 1900, 20 per cent more, in 1910, 17 
per cent more and 4/10 of one per cent more in 
1920. As compared with New York the State 
was spending 9 per cent more per capita in 
1870, 16 per cent less in 1890 and 13 per cent 


‘less in 1920. And as compared with the North 


Atlantic states 2 per cent more in 1915, 5 per 
cent more in 1917 and 16 per cent less in 1919 
than the average of this group. As compared 
with the North Central states Pennsylvania 
has been spending considerably less per capita 
than the average for the past forty years. In 
1920 Pennsylvania was spending 27 per cent 
less than the average of North Central group 
and 41 per cent less than the average of the 
Western states. 


In expenditures per capita of average 
school attendance, Pennsylvania was spend- 
ing 21 per cent more than the average of the 
United States in 1899, 16 per cent more in 
1909, and 5 per cent less in 1919; as com- 
pared with New York 16 per cent less in 
1899, 25 per cent less in 1909, and 27 per cent 
less in 1919; as compared with the North At- 
lantic states 17 per cent less in 1899, 13 per 
cent less in 1909 and 20 per cent less in 1919; 
as compared with the North Central states 17 
per cent more in 1899, 4 per cent less in 1909 
and 23 per cent less in 1920; and as compared 
with the Western states 36 per cent less in 
1919. During that. year the State was also 
spending 30 per cent less per capita of aver- 
age school: attendance than New Jersey and 
37 per cent less than California. The State’s 
expenditure per capita of average attendance . 
in 1919-20 was $51.76 per year, which was 
$2.89 less than the average for the United 
States as a whole, $22.64 less than New 
York, $15.28 less than the North Central 
states, $28.21 less than the Western states, 
$22.64 less than New Jersey and $29.90 less 
than California. 


These figures show that for a period of 
more than fifty years Pennsylvania has put 


*» 


SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM OF EDUCATION Te, 


relatively much less money per capita both of 
the total population and of total school at- 
tendance into the education of her children 
than the North Atlantic, the North Central 
and the Western states; that prior to the pas- 
sage of the Edmonds Law the State stood 
near the bottom of the list of all Northern 
states; that at the time of the passage of this 


law, the State was actually spending in these 


respects more than five per cent less than the 


’ average for the United States; and that even 


in 1921-22 the teachers’ salaries of the State 
except those of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia 
were less than the average for the United 
States. 

Turning to the present expenditures on 
teachers’ salaries, it must be noted that even 
with the heavy increases provided by the Ed- 
monds law Pennsylvania was still below the 
average for the United States in all schools 
except those of cities of more than 100,600 in- 
habitants in 1921-22. In those years the aver- 
age for the United States for cities between 


25,000 and 100,000 was $1,379; for cities be- . 


tween 10,000 and 25,000, $1,241; for cities and 
towns between 2,500 and 10,000, $1,097; for 
villages and towns employing three or more 
teachers, $885. The corresponding salaries 
for Pennsylvania were $1,244, $1,130, $1,029, 
$992 and $881, respectively. Therefore dur- 
ing the first year of the operation of the Ed- 
monds law the teachers’ salaries of Pennsyl- 
vania in all centers of population below 100,- 
000 were from 9.8 per cent less than the aver- 


age for the United States in cities of 25,000 


and 100,000, to .5 per cent less than the aver- 
age in village and rural districts. The teach- 
ers of the State in all but the schools of Pitts- 
burgh and Philadelphia are still receiving 
much lower salaries than are being paid in 
such states as Arizona, California, Colorado, 
New Jersey and New York. 

In the matter of expenditures for the train- 
ing of teachers, Pennsylvania has also not 
kept pace with the majority of Northern 
states. The sum paid for expenses and capital 
outlay on the Normal Schools in 1921-1922 on 
account of the provisions of the Edmonds law 
was very much greater than in any preceding 
year. However, the. average total expense 
per student enrolled in the normal schools of 
the State for that year was $271. This was 
somewhat below the average for such North- 
ern states as Wisconsin ($313) and Massa- 
chusetts ($370). 

The total cost of instruction in the normal 
schools of the State for 1921-1922 was only 


$130 per student enrolled, $95 of which was 
paid for instruction in the normal school and 
$35 for instruction in the. Training’ School. 
These figures are very low ‘when compared 
with those of other Northern states, being $48 
less per student for the total cost of instruc- 
tion than in Wisconsin and $92 less per student 
than in Massachusetts. On all these counts, 
therefore, the evidence clearly shows that, in 
viéw of the State’s ability to finance public 
education, it is not spending more, but con- 
siderably less than it should spend if what is 
being done in other Northern states is to be 
accepted as a proper standard. 

Is the State paying a larger percentage of 
the total cost of public education than it 
should as compared with local communities? 
The total amount appropriated by the State 
for the support of its schools in 1920 was 
$13,987,648 and in 1921, $18,459,658. This 
represented a per capita cost in 1920 of $1.60 
and in 1921 of $2.12. In the per capita 
amount spent for educational purposes, Penn- 
sylvania stood thirty-second in the United 
States in 1920, and in 1921, although the per 
capita amount, due to the operation of the 
Edmonds law, was 32 per cent greater than 
in 1920,—the amount appropriated for 1921 
placed the State in only the twenty-second 
place as compared with the expenditures of 
other states in 1920. It is unfortunate that 
the figures for the other states of the Union 
are not available for 1921, but there is no 
reason to believe that the expenditures in 
these states were on the average less than in 
1920. Twelve states paid more than twice as 
much per capita in 1920 as did Pennsylvania, 
and two, Nevada and Vermont, paid more 
than four times as much. 

In the per capita amount paid to elemen- 
tary and secondary schools, Pennsylvania 
ranked twenty-fifth among the states in 1920, 
and thirty-second in the per capita amount 
paid for the support of normal schools. In 
1921, the State appropriated more than four 
times as much to the normal schools as it did 
in 1920, and yet the amount paid in 1921 was 
smaller than the corresponding amount paid 
by ten other states in 1920. 

These facts indicate clearly that the State 
is not bearing a larger percentage of the total 
burden of education than it should, if here 
again what is being done in other states may | 
be accepted as the standard. Certainly such 
a standard cannot be considered too high. 
Variation in per capita wealth and in the in- 
terests, occupations and racial characteristics © 


3 c 
Ja 


14 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL 


of the people is much greater in Pennsylvania 
than in any other State, with the possible 
exception of New York. This variation very 
properly calls upon the State to bear a larger 
part of the financial burden than would other- 
wise be required in order that the burden and 
opportunities of.education may be more nearly 
equalized throughout the State. Where this 
variation is. slight, as in the case of the more 
strictly agricultural states of the Middle 
West, the whole burden of education may 
more justly be carried by local taxation. 

Is the ratio of expenditures for education 
to the total expenditures for all purposes in 
Pennsylvania greater than it should be? For 
the year 1918-1919, as shown by Report of the 
Bureau of Census on the Financial Statistics 
of States, Pennsylvania was devoting 27 per 
cent of its total expenditures to the support 
of education. The average for the United 
States for that year, as shown by the same 
Report, was 34 per cent. Pennsylvania was, 
therefore, devoting a much smaller percentage 
of its total expenditures to public education 
than the average of the states, ranking in 
this respect thirty-ninth among the states for 
that year. The expenditures of the several 
states in 1922 are unfortunately not accessible 
to the committee. The sum appropriated for 
education by Pennsylvania that year was 
much larger than for the preceding year. 
Nevertheless, if the percentage of expendi- 
tures for education in the other states had re- 
mained the same in 1922 as in 1919, Pennsyl- 
vania would still have been far below the 
average, and would have occupied thirtieth 
place among the states. The same Report of 
the Bureau of Census shows that, in the 
amount per capita of the total population 
appropriated by the State Government for the 
support of the schools, Pennsylvania ranked 
thirty-fifth among the states in 1919,—seven- 
teen states having appropriated more than 
twice as much and four states more than 
three times as much per capita for this pur- 
pose. 

As compared, therefore, with what is being 
done in other states, the larger fraction of 
total expenditures and the larger per capita 
amount devoted by the state to education 
under the operation of Edmonds law is not 
only justified, but could be considerably in- 
creased without exceeding the average for the 
United States. 

On all counts, therefore, the question “Is 
Pennsylvania spending too much for public 
education?” must be answered in the negative. 


Lastly, can Pennsylvania afford not to raise 
the money requisite to carry out the present 
state program. of education? It can not. This 
answer is inevitable in view of the facts that 
have been set forth in this report. Even under 
the increased expenditures called for by the 
Edmonds law, Pennsylvania is not at present 
spending more per capita or per pupil en- 
rolled than the average of Northern states. 
The fact that during the preceding quarter of 
a century Pennsylvania had allowed itself to 
fall far behind in the progress of education 
that group of states with which it should be 
compared makes it necessary for the State to 
spend more during the next few years to keep 
abreast of the procession than would other- 
wise have been required. It is hardly prob- 
able that the people of the State will fail to 
meet this emergency when they fully under- 
stand the present situation. 


The present moment is a very critical one 
in the educational history of the State, partly 
because of the fact that the progress of the 
last three years has been so rapid that the 


- rank and file of the people are not yet fully 


conscious of what has occurred and why there 
is at present such an urgent demand for more 
money for public education. A great battle 
has been fought and won, but the war itself 
is by no means over. It is now necessary to 
consolidate the splendid gains that have been 
made. The present program must be given 
time to reveal fully what it can accomplish 
and what changes it will be necessary to make 
in its operation. It is imperatively necessary 
that the teachers of the State shall consider 
the program as a whole and assist in pre- 
senting it to the people in its proper perspec- 
tive. To lose the splendid fight for better 
schools in this State would be a serious loss 
not only to Pennsylvania, but to every other 
State in the Union. There can be no doubt 
that Pennsylvania in its present program has 
taken the position of distinct leadership 
among American states in the improvement 
of public education. It should be the ambition 
of every school man and every citizen of the 
State to see to it that it does not lose this 
splendid position. 


Respectfully submitted by the Survey Com- 
mittee : 
JOHN W. WITHERS, Chairman 
FRANK Copy 
THOMAS E. JOHNSON 
PAYSON SMITH 
CHARL O. WILLIAMS 














\y 


